Is there a lack of substantial evidence to support a finding that a witness in a licensing revocation hearing was not credible?

Curiel's argument implies there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that her testimony was not credible. Weighing the credibility of witnesses and making fact findings is part of a trial court's independent review of licensing revocation proceedings. (Governing Board v. Haar (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 369, 377.) The trial court applied the correct test and cited reasons for finding Curiel not credible. An appellate court reviewing a license revocation must sustain the trial court's findings if they are supported by substantial evidence and must resolve conflicts in favor

Page 7